We’ve seen so many press releases for a new battery technology that seems almost to good to be true over the years. A lot of them were and never made it past the press release. Here’s to hoping this one isn’t one of those.
From the University of Southern California
USC scientists create new battery that’s cheap, clean, rechargeable… and organic
Scientists at USC have developed a water-based organic battery that is long lasting, built from cheap, eco-friendly components.
The new battery – which uses no metals or toxic materials – is intended for use in power plants, where it can make the energy grid more resilient and efficient by creating a large-scale means to store energy for use as needed.
“The batteries last for about 5,000 recharge cycles, giving them an estimated 15-year lifespan,” said Sri Narayan, professor of chemistry at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and corresponding author of a paper describing the new batteries that was published online by the Journal of the Electrochemical Society on June 20. “Lithium ion batteries degrade after around 1,000 cycles, and cost 10 times more to manufacture.”
Narayan collaborated with Surya Prakash, Prakash, professor of chemistry and director of the USC Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute, as well as USC’s Bo Yang, Lena Hoober-Burkhardt, and Fang Wang.
“Such organic flow batteries will be game-changers for grid electrical energy storage in terms of simplicity, cost, reliability and sustainability,” said Prakash.
The batteries could pave the way for renewable energy sources to make up a greater share of the nation’s energy generation. Solar panels can only generate power when the sun’s shining, and wind turbines can only generate power when the wind blows. That inherent unreliability makes it difficult for power companies to rely on them to meet customer demand.
With batteries to store surplus energy and then dole it out as needed, that sporadic unreliability could cease to be such an issue.
“‘Mega-scale’ energy storage is a critical problem in the future of the renewable energy, requiring inexpensive and eco-friendly solutions,” Narayan said.
The new battery is based on a redox flow design – similar in design to a fuel cell, with two tanks of electroactive materials dissolved in water. The solutions are pumped into a cell containing a membrane between the two fluids with electrodes on either side, releasing energy.
The design has the advantage of decoupling power from energy. The tanks of electroactive materials can be made as large as needed – increasing total amount of energy the system can store – or the central cell can be tweaked to release that energy faster or slower, altering the amount of power (energy released over time) that the system can generate.
The team’s breakthrough centered around the electroactive materials. While previous battery designs have used metals or toxic chemicals, Narayan and Prakash wanted to find an organic compound that could be dissolved in water. Such a system would create a minimal impact on the environment, and would likely be cheap, they figured.
Through a combination of molecule design and trial-and-error, they found that certain naturally occurring quinones – oxidized organic compounds – fit the bill. Quinones are found in plants, fungi, bacteria, and some animals, and are involved in photosynthesis and cellular respiration.
“These are the types of molecules that nature uses for energy transfer,” Narayan said.
Currently, the quinones needed for the batteries are manufactured from naturally occurring hydrocarbons. In the future, the potential exists to derive them from carbon dioxide, Narayan said.
The team has filed several patents in regards to design of the battery, and next plans to build a larger scale version.
This research was funded by the ARPA-E Open-FOA program (DE-AR0000337), the University of Southern California, and the Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute.
==============================================================
Here is the paper, which is open access.
An Inexpensive Aqueous Flow Battery for Large-Scale Electrical Energy Storage Based on Water-Soluble Organic Redox Couples
Abstract
We introduce a novel Organic Redox Flow Battery (ORBAT), for meeting the demanding requirements of cost, eco-friendliness, and durability for large-scale energy storage. ORBAT employs two different water-soluble organic redox couples on the positive and negative side of a flow battery. Redox couples such as quinones are particularly attractive for this application. No precious metal catalyst is needed because of the fast proton-coupled electron transfer processes. Furthermore, in acid media, the quinones exhibit good chemical stability. These properties render quinone-based redox couples very attractive for high-efficiency metal-free rechargeable batteries. We demonstrate the rechargeability of ORBAT with anthraquinone-2-sulfonic acid or anthraquinone-2,6-disulfonic acid on the negative side, and 1,2-dihydrobenzoquinone- 3,5-disulfonic acid on the positive side. The ORBAT cell uses a membrane-electrode assembly configuration similar to that used in polymer electrolyte fuel cells. Such a battery can be charged and discharged multiple times at high faradaic efficiency without any noticeable degradation of performance. We show that solubility and mass transport properties of the reactants and products are paramount to achieving high current densities and high efficiency. The ORBAT configuration presents a unique opportunity for developing an inexpensive and sustainable metal-free rechargeable battery for large-scale electrical energy storage.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (CC BY, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse of the work in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Full text: http://jes.ecsdl.org/content/161/9/A1371.full.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Redox flow batteries are not a new idea. Only suitable for grid storage. There are several inorganic chemistries. Organic quinones are a newer idea, first published by Harvard some months ago.
There are no grid stabilizing flow batteries in operation without massive federal subsidies as experiments. They are quite expensive (cost more than convention [peak] load [gas] turbine) and the numerous pilot scale facilities have suffered from severe reliability problems.
There will be a chapter on this in the forthcoming book, based on the California grid storage mandate (1.2 Gw installed by 2020) for which no commercial technologies yet exist. And the way the mandate was written, the Eagle Crest pumped storage proposal is excluded, despite using abandoned mines (utter waste land) and being less than 10 miles from an existing transmission line corridor (no additional land use impact). Chapter is titled California Dreaming.
there was a time when inventors toiled in their workshops and garages and only “announced” their discoveries to the world when they wanted to actually sell a product … these clowns will never create something useful … ever … oh, they may stumble across something once in a while but someone else will figure out how to make it work and get it to market …
Brian S says: June 26, 2014 at 4:47 am
I have not yet seen pumped storage mentioned on WUWT as an energy storage option .
_________________________________
Been mentioned several times.
Pumped storage is efficient and simple. Dinorwig is the UKs largest, and it cost a fortune to build. It gives 5 gwh on discharge. The trouble is, we would need 5,000 Dinorwigs, to power the UK for a couple of weeks.
Several problems with that.
a. One Dinorwig nearly bankrupted the energy corporation, let alone 5,000 of them.
b. The greens forced Dinorwig to be built inside a mountain, quintupling its cost.
c. Everywhere you want to build a Dinorwig, the Greens will find an endangered species.
d. There are simply not enough mountains in the UK – especially if Scotland votes for independence.
e. The greens support Scottish independence.
f. The biggest hurdle for creating pumped storage systems, is the Greens.
.
Someone also mentioned the power generation requirements for going to electric transport. As a general rule of thumb, you need to double your electrical generation capacity, to run all your surface transport by electrical power.
But do remember that neither electricity not hydrogen is a power source. So all electric vehicles are currently oil, nuclear, coal or gas powered (with 2% renewables). And since the generation of electricity from fossils is hardly efficient, most european turbo-diesel powered cars are MORE efficient than any electric vehicle. My turbo diesel saloon car, is about 10% more efficient than any electrical vehicle – especially when the ambient temperature goes below zero and you try using the heating systems (my diesel car’s heating is via waste energy, so does not reduce propulsionary efficiency).
And please also do note that the efficiency analysis of electric vehicles by Professor David MacKay (the UK government’s energy advisor) is a compendium of lies and disinformation. Prof MacKay says that electric vehicles are 5 times as efficient as fossil fuelled vehicles. But the deliberately deceitful professor has negated to take power station and transmission inefficiencies into account. he has been notified of his error, and admitted his (deliberate) error many years ago, but has declined to rectify and update his briefing paper to UK politicians.
Let me say it here. Professor David macKay is a charlatan and a fraud, who is seeking to deliberately mislead British politicians. Please note – this statement is nothing to do with Mr Anthony Watts nor with WUWT. It is my statement and my accusation. I have said it before, and been threatened with court action by Prof MacKay, but no action has ever been taken. So where is your action, Prof MacKay? You are a charlatan and a fraud, and I am happy to see you in court.
Sincerely,
Ralph Ellis
I see a very nontrivial practical problem: in order to get to a practical voltage for grid storage, you would need hundreds, maybe 1000, cells in series. In order to prevent shorting, each set of pumps and tanks would have to be electrically isolated. This would mean maybe 2000 plastic tanks and 2000 plastic pumps. Not impossible, but an extremely serious cost.
For mobile applications I think Mr Wright at wrightspeed.com has the “right” idea (I know, groan, but I couldn’t resist). Electric motors have some nice features like max torque at the low end (to get moving) but range has always been a problem. Put in a diesel generator and you have unlimited range. Use the sun and wind to generate diesel which will store for a considerable time. I know you would lose more energy in the extra conversion step but it beats trying to store electricity.
For stationary applications where size can be huge why not use the nickle-iron that is mentioned above?
The technology, if it scales up, would be useable not just for renewable energy. It would also be useable to smooth out the daily ups and downs in demand of all electrical supply systems regardless of power source. Electric utilities commonly have an excess of generation capacity at night. That surplus from whatever source could charge the battery.
The storage in an electrical grid would be located near the demand, not near the source of power. It would not be situated in or near a wind farm, it would be situated near a demand the wind farm is supplying. Since demand is less at night, line losses would be less then as well.
For a utility sized system the size of the tanks involved would not be a large barrier. Two tanks, each one million gallons, would easily fit on a one acre lot.
Because of the equipment and operational requirements, I don’t think this would be appropriate for smaller than industrial sized applications.
There is a lot of development before the technology is useable on a commercial scale or if it proves to be economic, if it ever will be, but the concept would be useful.
Harold says: “I see a very nontrivial practical problem” [voltage].
Not so. You would need a step-down transformer to convert from 275kV (grid voltage) to the level required for the storage device. The same transformer would be used for step-up when sending the power back to the grid. The step-down and step-up would involve losses of about 0.5% each way. It would have to be included in the turnaround efficiency mentioned in my earlier post.
Brian S says: “I have not yet seen pumped storage mentioned on WUWT as an energy storage option.”
There is a limited role for pumped storage in the short-term (daily) and is very expensive to build. It has the same 25% turnaround loss I mentioned earlier. For pumped storage to break even on any day, daily peak power price needs to be 25% more than daily minimum power price. For pumped storage to make a decent investment case, the power market price needs to be consistently spiky with enough peak-trough price differential to fund the capital. A very spiky power price probably means there is a shortage of peak power. Governments, the electorate and business don’t like power shortage, so the more practical option is to build firm generating capacity.
Washington state gets 95%+ of all its energy from Hydro.
Puget Sound Energy, the state’s largest utility, generates a third of its electricity with a coal plant in Montana. You are also ignoring the use of energy for heating — lots of natural gas and oil — and for transportation.
I thought we were supposed to use the area between the windmills for farming and ranching?
Ever been to a windmill field?
We introduce a novel Organic Redox Flow Battery (ORBAT), for meeting the demanding requirements of cost, eco-friendliness, and durability for large-scale energy storage.
The demanding requirements of ‘eco-friendliness’? Ugh. The most flagrant of non sequiturs….. Literal goobledygook.
And yet, we might update an old joke to reflect a novel use of the ‘eco-friendliness’ catch phrase.
” Is that a redox coupled quinone battery in your pocket…. or are you just glad to see me?
Josh???
naturally ocurring hydrocarbons
What a wonderful piece of newspeak!
If electric cars become the norm, where will the energy come from to recharge so many vehicles daily (or nightly)? What will the energy requirement be to recharge, let’s say, 100 million vehicles at least once per day?
I will answer this. But before I do it, I want to make it clear that I’m not some cultist about EVs. I regularly do battle with the “EVangelists” elsewhere. I’m very realistic about them. To me, the main selling point, long-term, is their energy efficiency, and their simplicity. But they’ll need a leap in battery technology to be viable.
Okay, with that out of the way, I will do two scenarios. Scenario A is 100 million “commuter cars” used in and near cities, i.e., the batteries aren’t very big. Commuter cars average about 8,000 miles a year, or 22 miles a day, 365 days a year. Scenario B is that batteries make the big breakthrough in cost and performance, and become truly versatile enough for long-distance travel. In that case, the average car goes 13,000 miles a year, or 36 miles a day.
I will also assume modest improvement in fuel efficiency, counterbalanced by a wider geographical dispersion to places that are less hospitable to EVs. I’m referring to the well-known phenomenon of much lower winter performance, owing to the need to run the heating and air conditioning off the battery. If there were 100 million EVs, you’d see them in more extreme climate zones. You’d also see bigger ones,.
The latest version of the Nissan LEAF gets 115 mpg-e (miles per gallon equivalent) as tested by the EPA, which translates to 3.3 miles per kWh or 300 watt hours per mile. To answer your question, I’m going to assume that, by the time there are 100 million EVs, the fleet average is 115 mpg-e. This would entail performance improvement given the conditions I mentioned, but I don’t think outlandish improvement. There are lots of opportunities to improve EV efficiency.
Finally, I will assume U.S. non-EV electricity generation of 4 trillion kWh a year by the time there are 100 million EVs. This would the basically the same as now — population and economic growth has been offset by efficiency improvements for the past decade or so, and I will assume this continues. To that 4 trillion kWh a year, I’ll add EV requirements to yield a percentage.
Scenario A: 100 million EVs driven 8,000 miles a year = 0.8 trillion EV miles (x) 0.3 kWh/mile = 0.24 trillion kWh/year, or a 6% increase in electricity demand from 4 trillion kWh a year.
Scenario B: 100 million EVs driven 13,000 miles a year = 1.3 trillion EV miles (x) 0.3 kWh/mile = 0.39 trillion kWh/year = a 9.75% increase in electricity demand from 4 trillion kWh a year.
Some additional comments.
1. If there’s a battery breakthrough that enables 100 million EVs, I think it’s reasonable to suggest that there’d also be a similar breakthrough in grid-scale storage. This would lead to greater adoption of renewables. I’m not an “EVangelist” for the cars, nor am I a renewables fundamentalist, but I do think that cheap grid-scale storage would be a game-changer for renewables, and would spur major growth in that sector.
Today, the U.S. gets just under 7% of its power from hydro, just over 4% of its power from wind, and 0.2% from solar. Assume grid scale storage, and by the time we have 100 million EVs running around, I think we’d have 20% of the electrons coming from wind and solar. Therefore, I think the increase in juice needed for the EVs would be more than made up by the increase from renewables.
2. I am a climate change skeptic, and increasing a climate change cynic. I favor renewables today only on a small scale because of the cost issues mainly associated with the storage problem. But if that’s solved, then my objection to renewables mainly becomes a matter of the visual blight of windmills, which I regard as a significant issue. Given the cheap cost of windmills, however, I think they’d be deployed in large numbers anyway.
3. Climate change aside, I think there are enough other negative environmental effects from hydrocarbon production and use to want to shift away from them if it makes sense in terms of cost and performance.
4. On the EV side, while not an “EVangelist,” there are plenty of reasons to regard electric vehicles as a leap forward if the battery issues were solved. They perform better; they are quieter; they mechanically simpler. The gating factor is entirely the energy density and cost of batteries. If that nut is cracked, EVs will be the future. That much said, however, the auto replacement cycle would make the change-over a multi-decade process even under the best of circumstances.
I meant to add one more thing. There are 250 million passenger vehicles in the United States. Full conversion — implying the 13,000-mile annual mileage scenario — would thus entail an electric power demand increase of about 25%. I might also point out, however, that it would also entail a reduction of 60% in the use of oil, the 60% being the share of U.S. oil converted into gasoline. I don’t have the number for diesel.
On the diesel front, I’d expect long-haul trucks to continue to burn diesel. But that, of course, would depend on the specifics of battery development. Again, this is all assuming a battery breakthrough. Frankly, I don’t see one coming of the sort that would crack the market wide open. Lots of press releases, but not a lot of new products out there.
So all electric vehicles are currently oil, nuclear, coal or gas powered (with 2% renewables). And since the generation of electricity from fossils is hardly efficient, most european turbo-diesel powered cars are MORE efficient than any electric vehicle. My turbo diesel saloon car, is about 10% more efficient than any electrical vehicle – especially when the ambient temperature goes below zero and you try using the heating systems (my diesel car’s heating is via waste energy, so does not reduce propulsionary efficiency).
I can only respond in U.S. terms, because I don’t have the European numbers. But I do have them for the U.S., and there are: 39% coal, 28% natural gas, 19% nuclear, 1% petroleum = 87% mined energy sources. The rest is 7% hydro, 4% wind, 2% geothermal, “biomass” (wood, municipal waste), solar.
It’s an interesting question about the efficiency of electricity generation from fossil fuels. I have to admit that I’ve never thought about it, i.e., how much heat is wasted. The only number I’ve tracked is that 6-7% of electricity is lost in transport, but I’ve always assumed that this roughly matches the energy cost of getting refined fuels from refineries to gas stations.
Your diesel saloon wastes about two-thirds of the energy in the fuel. It goes out the tailpipe, engine compartment, and radiator, mainly as heat and secondarily as noise and vibration. Electric cars waste 20-25% of the electrons in heat, mainly in the conversion of AC power to DC for use by the motor.
Electric motive power is much more efficient. As of a couple years ago, the average U.S. electric car got about 100 miles per gallon, using an equation that renders the energy contained in gasoline in kWh terms. The average small car got 28.5 mpg. Since then, the newer EVs have improved their fuel economy by about 10%.
A few additions about the numbers in my last post.
1. They come from the Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Department. EPA fuel economy numbers were originally somewhat inaccurate but have gotten much better in recent years. Energy Department forecasts tend to stink, but their production data is highly reliable.
2. The fuel economy numbers are best understood as year-’round averages, taking into account the use of on-board climate control. Obviously, this will vary in a country as vast and climactically diverse as the United States, which is to say that the results for Los Angeles would be very different than those for Minneapolis. Here in Seattle, my “dead of winter” EV fuel economy is just under 70 miles per gallon equivalent, versus top of spring/summer fuel economy of just under 140 miles per gallon equivalent.
3. When I compare hydrocarbon to electric propulsion, I omit the energy costs prior to refining, and within the refinery — with one exception that I get to in a moment. I do this because the data isn’t available, and because it would have to be applied on both sides of the equation anyway. The exception is the amount of electricity used to refine gasoline. This has been hotly debated in EV circles, so I nailed it down by examining production figures in detail. A gallon of gasoline turns out to “contain” 0.78 kWh of electricity from sources external to a refinery — either purchased electricity or fuels turned into electricity in turbines located at the refinery. It winds up being a trivial factory, but since I did the research I do include it in “mpg-e” numbers.
The idea that a diesel (or gasoline) vehicle is “more efficient” than an electric one because electricity is generated by fossil fuels is interesting. True, we can expect that electric power plants convert coal, gas, and uranium-plutonium to electrons at less than full efficiency, but we can also expect that refineries lose a great deal of energy in the distillation process. If you have sources that compare one to the other, I’d love to see them.
@Eric Worrall at 6:27 pm
Quinones are horribly toxic highly reactive organic chemicals, currently used (with care!) in the dye and photographic industry. Part of the toxicity of benzene is caused by the body converting absorbed benzene into toxic quinone metabolites.
Thank you, Eric. I suggest your comment and observation be added as an Update directly under the head post. I don’t know whether it is true or not, but there is no reason to assume an organic compound is non-toxic and safe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,4-Benzoquinone (Toxic)
It strikes me that the more water soluble they make the variant, to increase power and energy density, the more toxic and dangerous the compound becomes.
The problems of MTBE in groundwater come to mind.
Let’s assume the batteries are toxic. So what?
False: The electricity used at a EV is “at-delivered” efficiencies for the current received at the plug,AND after-stored-and-converted rates are needed to get that electric power into and back out of the blasted battery!
Thermal power to transformer voltage and finally wall current: 35% (nuclear) to 45% ( average coal and single-cycle peaker Gas Turbine) to 58% (new GT driving a heat-recovery-steam-generator).
Then, wall current = 0.90-0.93 x generator efficiency (transmission losses) Much more if wind is used!
Then battery-in DC current = 90% plug-in AC current (convertor losses to DC)
Then battery-out DC current from battery-in DC current (chemical storage and conversion losses) = 60-70%
Then battery-out DC current to DC motor rotation energy = 85% (maybe!)
Then DC motor rotation to wheel energy (friction losses, rubber flex losses, oil and gear losses). Somewhat compensated by regenerative braking gains!) = 95%
But, refinery energy (except pump losses) are almost straight thermal energy direct to the reactors and catalytic convertors. What thermal losses do occur are from the thermal insulation losses at each pumping and refining step as the heated heavy oils condense (cool down) from step to step. And thermal losses are minimized as much as possible because those are lost dollars. Very, very little energy is “lost” at the refineries that is not absolutely minimized, or used to reheat a future product. At the generating plants, EVERY effort is used to improve efficiencies, but thermal rejection is required by the states and EPA to (often) higher than optimum. (Water, for example, is rejected not at the most efficient temperature, but at less efficient temperatures because of fish or river total temperature change minimums.
Actually, a concrete production plant or steel mill melting the ore directly by burning coal or natural gas is one of the highest efficiencies possible: The hot gas effluent AND radiated energy is used immediately and directly into the product being heated with almost no transmission or parasitic losses!
I didn’t see one word about energy density, in Wh / kg or Wh /m^3.
Ho hum, nothing to see here.
I saw another “news release” on a solar cell that is more than twice as efficient as today’s best cells; over 60 %. But that is “theoretically”. Nobody has one in their hand that is that efficient, or even works.
Oh I forgot; it ONLY works at one wavelength.
What the hell are they talking about; a laser driven solar cell ? Totally nuts.
Another bum steer.
BUT ! solar cells do run on virgin hay, from the sun; not the cheap stuff that has been once through the horse; like wind turbines use.
Wake me when they have a functioning 100 MW peak power plant , that gets say 300 W peak power electricity, per square metre of total land used area.
Thermal power to transformer voltage and finally wall current: 35% (nuclear) to 45% ( average coal and single-cycle peaker Gas Turbine) to 58% (new GT driving a heat-recovery-steam-generator).
Please provide sources for this. This is not a rhetorical game or dilatory exercise on my part. I’m genuinely interested. I think you might be onto something here. Thanks.
Then, wall current = 0.90-0.93 x generator efficiency (transmission losses) Much more if wind is used!
Transmission loss is 6%
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3
Why would transmission loss be greater for one generation source than another?
Then battery-in DC current = 90% plug-in AC current (convertor losses to DC)
Then battery-out DC current from battery-in DC current (chemical storage and conversion losses) = 60-70%
Then battery-out DC current to DC motor rotation energy = 85% (maybe!)
Then DC motor rotation to wheel energy (friction losses, rubber flex losses, oil and gear losses). Somewhat compensated by regenerative braking gains!) = 95%
Again, please give sources. And if there’s so much loss in electric, why does a Nissan LEAF get more than triple the fuel economy of a Nissan Versa (same car, different power systems) when stated in equivalent terms?
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33581&id=34699
I didn’t see one word about energy density, in Wh / kg or Wh /m^3.
Energy density is discussed throughout the study.
Transmission losses are dependent on the location of the actual generator compared to the location of the “plug”. Wind generators average on 18-23% yearly nameplate ratings. (Often entire regions (the entire southeast US, or the entire US NE region) has NO effective wind power being generated. Thus, the “wind power” being assumed the generated source for the EV, may come from not the 6% transmission loss assumed at 300-500 mile distance, but from a 40 or 50% greater loss at 1200 – 1500 mile distance.
Someone mentioned low-hanging fruit in terms of batteries. Ahem, those are the ones we are using today. Point to the CRC Handbook of Chemistry & Physics oxidation-reduction voltage potentials. That’s just your starting point.
Someone mentioned EVs as breakthroughs provided ‘batteries’ or fuel-cells see an efficiency breakthrough. History suggests otherwise. One hundred years ago, ICE/ECE vs electrics were a draw technically and economically. Guess which moved forward economically and which didn’t.
@Jake J says: at 1:34 pm
Energy density is discussed throughout the study
No, Jake. Current density is discussed throughout. Power density once.
Energy density is not discussed at all.
Let’s assume the batteries are toxic. So what?
1. They are not being honest when they say: “The new battery – which uses no metals or toxic materials
2. It is one thing to say your battery uses “organic” materials instead of toxic metals. But it is quite another if you must handle the organic material as if it was curare. I’m not saying it is. But they are not saying it isn’t. They don’t discuss toxicity of the ORBAT materials.
Wikipedia for Hydroquinone, the reduced state of the suggested battery material:
EU classification Harmful (Xn)
Carc. Cat. 3
Muta. Cat. 3
Dangerous for
the environment (N)
R-phrases R22 R40 R41 R43 R50 R68
S-phrases (S2) S26 S36/37/39 S61
R22 Harmful if swallowed
R40 Limited evidence of a carcinogenic effect
R41 Risk of serious damage to eyes
R43 May cause sensitisation by skin contact
R68 Possible risk of irreversible effects
S36 Wear suitable protective clothing
S37 Wear suitable gloves
S39 Wear eye/face protection
S61 Avoid release to the environment. Refer to special instructions/safety data sheet
— so at first blush, it may be less hazardous than is octane.
.
I think fuel cells are a real joke. As for batteries being primitive, well, other than lithium-ion, we really haven’t had much by way of breakthroughs. Maybe we never will.
As for transmission losses, most of the U.S. windmills are in three places: the Columbia River, California, and Texas. A fair amount of Columbia River hydro (not sure how much of its wind power) goes to Los Angeles. If the lines from the converter at The Dalles, for instance, lose 18%-23% on the way to L.A., I’d be interested in seeing something that would substantiate it, i.e. a link. I’d note that one-third of suburban Seattle’s electricity comes from a big coal plant 900 miles away in Montana, so I suppose we could assume similar transmission losses there.
In any case, I am not a fan of windmills. I think they’re an ugly blight, and at the very least I want them sited in places with no scenic value. But I think conflating them with transmission losses is misleading, just as it would be bogus to argue against Puget Sound Energy’s coal plant because it’s so far away.